AndyH

The trustee is the owner of the business. I don't yet have all the specific facts; I was merely told second hand that contributions from a startup plan 2 years ago were deposited in an account in the name of the owner temporarily (but still not changed). But the deposits were reported on a prior SB. (Takeover, naturally). Just trying to anticipate the various avenues for moving forward.

New DB plan set up and client funds corporate contribution into an ambiguously defined savings account. What makes this a retirement account or not? Is intent relevant? Is it automatically not a valid deposit if the account was identified in the name of the business owner (and later corrected)? Or does it specifically need to be identified in the name of the plan or owner as Trustee?

I remember many years ago the Cash Balance Answer Book stated that a cash balance plan could have a last day provision. I researched it extensively and emailed the authors to check that and never got a reply. (I don't remember their names). I believe that was changed in the subsequent edition.

I would like to see this in print also. Haven't yet; just read some regulars here stating it to be the IRS opinion.

I think Lou is correct. Failure to be employed on the last day is not a permitted exclusion under 411 for a DB plan.

The original question was a bit muddled.

Last time I checked (fairly recently) it was $1,100 single user DC only and $3,080 combo plans.

My understanding is that such a "conversion" would be a (1) termination and then (2) an adoption of a new plan. It does not sound like the conditions have been met, so my vote is No.

I think EBG is excellent and would strongly recommend it. Definitely check it out.

How are his RMD's determined, i.e. what is the payment interval? How much was taken in the first year and how was that determined?

I understand that the top heavy minimum would be subject to 417(e), so whipsaw was awakened to a certain extent. Creating a CB allocation would not satisfy this issue.

I would give her a raise. She doesn't even make minimum wage. (I'm only half joking).

Why wasn't the effective date of the plan set as 1/1/2018?

Great link!

The accrued benefit is being increased for anyone with pre 2019 service.

Right. So I guess it is frontloading not backloading from that perspective. Thanks.

Thanks for the reply. The cite says any amendment to the plan which is in effect for the current year shall be treated as in effect for all other plan years; It is not obvious to me that this exempts the fact that the current year accrual is more than 133% of the prior year accrual. How do I get past that?

Have an antique integrated DB plan of .75% of average comp +.50% of average comp > $10,000, max 35 years. Sponsor wants to increase benefits by not more than 10% while keeping it simple and maintaining safe harbor status. Thinking about amending the plan to add to the existing formula effective 1/1/2019 2% of average comp x Years of service prior to 1/1/2019 limited to 5 years. This provision seems to violate the 133% rule. Or is it ok because it is due to an amendment and would be ok for every year of service starting 1/1/2019? If not ok, any other ideas (within the objective of a safe harbor formula)?

FWIW, I would use the testing assumptions to project the DC to 65.

OK, no argument but the question was "Could he possibly....." and that, in general terms, could be answered by knowing the person's age.

Age?

.....and nobody has even brought up VEBAs and 412(I)!

Good questions Ellen.

Definitely determinable benefits? I don't see how the prior actuary's interpretation could withstand an employee's challenge.

Why not Tom? DB World had to do that a few years ago when anything below 62 became all but banned.